The REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury was a two-day deliberative mini-public held in Utrecht in June 2023. Citizens discussed disinformation, trust, expert advice and knowledge circulation after Covid-19, then produced ranked policy recommendations.
The REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury was a deliberative mini-public held in Utrecht on 10 and 24 June 2023, focused on the contribution of experts in policymaking, disinformation, knowledge circulation and trust after Covid-19 (Leruth, 2023, pp. 3-4). Organised within the REGROUP project by a University of Groningen team, it used Sortition Foundation to recruit participants by age, gender, education and location. Of the 22 citizens invited, 20 confirmed, 19 attended the first day, and 18 completed both sessions (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). Participants made ranked policy recommendations, creating a civil-society-led communication channel for scientific research (Leruth, 2023, pp. 8-10).
Problems and Purpose
The purpose of the REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury was to address the democratic problems raised by Covid-19, especially around public trust, role of (non-elected) experts in policy making, disinformation and political communication. The wider REGROUP project argued that the pandemic created an opportunity for institutional and policy change well past immediate emergency responses, providing the European Union with “actionable advice” on rebuilding post-pandemic governance in an effective and democratic way (Leruth, 2023, p. 2). In the Dutch case, this broad aim was narrowed into a citizens’ jury on trust, disinformation, knowledge circulation and the role of experts in policy-making (Leruth, 2023, pp. 3-4). The problem was therefore not only that Covid-19 had created difficult public health decisions, but that these decisions exposed issues around how citizens receive information, how experts influence policy, and how public authorities justify decisions during crisis. This created a clear need for public discussion, since deliberative democracy is concerned with citizens and representatives giving reasons for decisions that affect others, rather than relying only on authority or aggregated opinion (Thompson, 2008, pp. 498-500).
A second problem was due to the circulation and reliability of knowledge during the pandemic. On the first day, participants were asked to reflect on whether Covid-19 information was understandable, whether public authorities communicated properly, whether traditional media handled the crisis well, whether they had come across fake news, and whether non-elected experts played a fair role in policy-making (Leruth, 2023, pp. 4-5). This shows that the jury was not only about citizens’ views on Covid-19, but about how democratic systems should communicate and breakdown scientific and political information during times of uncertainty and crises. Participants also discussed confusion caused by information overload and different national approaches, with one participant questioning whether Dutch citizens should have listened to Dutch experts or Swedish experts when countries used different methods to handle the pandemic (Leruth, 2023, p. 5). The case therefore addressed a wider democratic problem: when citizens receive competing information from governments, media and experts, trust depends on the accuracy of information and whether it is communicated clearly, and accessibly.
A Citizens’ Jury was appropriate because the issues being discussed were technical and democratic. Citizens’ Juries are a small group of randomly selected citizens who deliberate on a policy issue and produce recommendations for the organising body; they are especially suited to complex or contested issues because jurors hear a range of perspectives before concluding (Participedia, 2025). In this case, communication during the pandemic required scientific evidence, expert advice, public trust and political judgement. Hence, leaving these issues only to experts or elected officials would have missed how ordinary citizens experienced confusion, information overload and trust during the crisis. At the same time, a simple survey would not have allowed participants to question evidence or reflect collectively. The jury therefore aimed to bring public participation and informed judgement together by giving citizens space to discuss pressing issues, caused by the pandemic before proposing recommendations for post-pandemic governance.
Background History and Context
Mini-publics are democratic innovations that bring together a small group of citizens to deliberate on public issues. Smith argues that mini-publics most striking feature is its use of random selection, a method with history going back to Athenian practices of selection by lot (Smith, 2009, p. 72). This is important as random selection gives ordinary citizens a role in political judgement, rather than leaving participation only to elected representatives or organised interests. Smith also links mini-publics to Dahl’s idea of a “minipopulus”, a randomly selected group of citizens that could deliberate on major issues, hear from specialists and then announce its choices (Smith, 2009, p. 73). The REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury fits into this tradition because it selected a small group of citizens to deliberate on the democratic problems created and intensified by Covid-19, especially around expertise and public communication.
The Citizens’ Jury model is a specific form of deliberative mini-public. Participedia defines a Citizens’ Jury as a small group of randomly selected citizens, broadly representative of the relevant area, who deliberate on a policy issue and makes decisions or recommendations through informed discussion (Participedia, 2025). Citizens’ Juries or panels also allow citizens to receive information, hear evidence, cross-examine witnesses and deliberate on the issue, usually providing recommendations for a public agency (Smith, 2009; Spada, 2026). This separates a Citizens’ Jury from a general consultation or an opinion poll. Its purpose is not just to collect existing preferences, but to give citizens time to hear information and question evidence to form more educated recommendations. In the REGROUP case, this model was adapted into a two-day process where participants reflected on pandemic communication and then developed policy recommendations.
This background is important because the REGROUP process emerged after Covid-19 exposed wider socio-political problems. The REGROUP project states that the pandemic allowed opportunity for institutional and policy change, not only in relation to emergency responses but also in relation to challenges caused or worsened by Covid-19 (Leruth, 2023, p. 2). Its aim was to provide the European Union with actionable advice on rebuilding post-pandemic governance and public policy in an effective and democratic way (Leruth, 2023, p. 2). The Netherlands Citizens’ Jury used this wider project as a national deliberative process focused on disinformation, knowledge circulation, trust in politics and the impact of experts to policymaking (Leruth, 2023, pp. 3-4). This placed the case between post-pandemic governance and democratic innovation: it used mini-publics to explore how citizens thought public authorities, experts and media should communicate knowledge during crisis.
Goodin and Dryzek argue that mini-publics are designed to be small enough for genuine reasoning and representative enough to carry democratic relevance, but their key challenge is how they connect to the wider “macro” political system (Goodin & Dryzek, 2006, pp. 220-221). Setälä similarly notes that deliberative mini-publics often have weak or vague policy impacts, especially when they are advisory and not clearly integrated into representative decision-making (Setälä, 2017, pp. 846-847). The REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury should therefore be seen as less of a decision-making body and more as an advisory deliberative mini-public designed to make informed citizen recommendations on post-pandemic democratic governance. Its democratic value depends not only on the quality of discussion inside the room, but also on recruitment and whether its recommendations had any wider uptake.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury was organised by a six-person committee, all affiliated with the University of Groningen. Benjamin Leruth, Scientific Coordinator of REGROUP’s Work Package 4, and Elsbeth Bembom, REGROUP’s Project and Dissemination Manager, oversaw the process and held meetings with stakeholders (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). The process, hence, was not organised by the Dutch government itself, but through the REGROUP research project and its University of Groningen team. This is important because the case should be understood as a research-led and advisory deliberative process, rather than a state-led citizens’ assembly with formal policy authority.
Ines Calixto Piersma, Bas Kuus and Thijs de Zee co-moderated the citizens’ jury and made the transcripts and translations of the mini-public discussions (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). Roan Kremer welcomed participants, answered questions or concerns during the day, and took notes that later formed the basis of the report (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). These roles were important as citizens’ juries rely on organised facilitation and documentation to turn discussion into a structured deliberative process. The use of moderators and note-takers helped connect the discussions inside the room to the final report produced after the event.
The jury was also supported by three experts, introduced to participants as “resource persons” to help them make policy recommendations. Lisanne de Blok and Marij Swinkels, both Assistant Professors at the University of Utrecht, and Lars Brummel, a Postdoctoral Researcher at Leiden University, answered participants’ questions and gave feedback on draft recommendations (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). The event took place at Quinton House in Utrecht city centre, where a large room was used for plenary sessions and two smaller rooms were available for breakout discussions (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). This set-up supported both whole-group discussion and smaller group deliberation.
It was funded through the wider REGROUP project, where funding came from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant number 101060825 (Leruth, 2023, p. 1). Participants who attended both days received a €100 gift card, while each of the three resource persons received a €50 gift card as a token of appreciation (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). This compensation was not of a large sum but recognises the time commitment required across the two-day process. Compensation can make participation more realistic for people who might otherwise be less able to give up two full days.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The Sortition Foundation dealt with participation recruitment, who were subcontracted to recruit citizens for the Dutch jury. As per the report, recruitment was based on three main criteria: age, gender and education. The Sortition Foundation was also asked to make sure that the jury included participants from outside Utrecht, rather than only those who lived in the city (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). From the pool of interested citizens, participants were selected with the aim of creating diversity across gender, age, education, geography and types of consumed news sources (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). This reflects the wider logic of mini-publics, where selection is used as a way of bringing ordinary citizens into political judgement (Smith, 2009, pp. 72-73).
In terms of attendance. 22 participants were invited, of which, 20 confirmed that they would attend the first session. Of these, 19 attended the first day and 18 also took part in the second day (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). This meant that the final recommendations were by the 18 participants who completed both sessions. This small number fits the Citizens’ Jury model, which normally depends on a group small enough to allow face-to-face deliberation and discussion. However, it also means that the democratic legitimacy of the process depended heavily on whether those 18 participants were a good representation of the broad range of citizen experiences.
The final group had some clear strengths in terms of descriptive representation. Gender was evenly balanced, with a 50% / 50% male and female split (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). The age distribution also included several age groups: 22% were aged 18-24, 39% were aged 25-44, 28% were aged 45-64, and 11% were aged 65 or above (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). This shows that the process did not only involve one narrow age category and was kept broad. The attempt to include participants from outside Utrecht and to consider different news sources also strengthened the recruitment process, as the topic of the jury concerned information, media and trust. For a case focused on knowledge circulation and disinformation, including people with different media habits was particularly relevant.
However, the main weakness was education. The final group was heavily skewed towards highly educated participants. According to the report, 83% of the 18 participants had university education at bachelor level or higher, 11% had HBO or bachelor-equivalent higher professional education, 5% had secondary education, and no participants came from primary education (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). The report recognises this limitation and justifies this by stating that Dutch participants were more highly educated than average and that Sortition Foundation could not recruit participants with lower levels of education (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). This matters as education is not just a demographic category. Himmelroos’ study of deliberative citizen forums suggests that those with higher education can be more active in political discourse, providing better arguments than those with lower education (Himmelroos, 2017, p. 14). Hence, the absence of lower-educated citizens may have affected not only representation, but also the range of experiences and arguments brought into the room.
Overall, recruitment was designed in a way to create diversity, but inclusion was only partially achieved. The process performed well on gender balance and had a reasonable spread of ages, but it wasn't as strong on educational diversity. This is important for assessing the democratic quality of the case because mini-publics depend on the claim that a small group can reflect the wider public more fairly. In the REGROUP Netherlands case, although sortition helped structure the recruitment process, it did not solve inequalities in who was able or willing to participate in the end. The recruitment method was designed to create descriptive diversity, but the outcome of participants showed that sortition does not guarantee inclusion, as seen where recruitment struggled to reach lower-educated citizens.
Methods and Tools Used
The main method used was a Citizens’ Jury, which is a form of deliberative mini-public. Citizens’ Juries bring together a small group of selected citizens to consider a policy issue through informed discussion before producing recommendations (Participedia, 2025). This matches the REGROUP Netherlands case as participants were brought together over two full days to discuss disinformation, trust, expert advice and knowledge circulation after Covid-19 (Leruth, 2023, pp. 3-4). The process therefore used deliberation as its main democratic tool, aiming to help citizens reflect on complex political and scientific questions before making policy recommendations. This follows the general method of Citizens’ Juries, where citizens receive information, hear evidence, question experts and deliberate before reaching conclusions (Spada, 2026).
The first tool used was sortition-based recruitment. Sortition Foundation was subcontracted to recruit participants by the criteria of age, gender and education, while also including participants from outside Utrecht and considering location and news-consumption habits (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). This mattered because the jury’s topic was directly linked to information sources and media. The recruitment process hence wasn't just administrative; it was part of the method itself. They created a small group that could reflect different citizen perspectives on communication and disinformation during the pandemic. However, this tool had limits because the final group was much more highly educated than the wider population (Leruth, 2023, p. 4).
A structured two-day format was also used by the jury. All domestic REGROUP citizens’ juries followed the same schedule, running from 9:00 to 17:00 on both days (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). The first day focused on introductions, understanding the core issues, sharing personal experiences and discussing future perspectives (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). One important tool was a “moving debate”, where participants positioned themselves in the room depending on their opinion on statements about Covid-19 information, public communication, fake news, non-elected experts and preparedness for future pandemics (Leruth, 2023, pp. 4-5). This allowed for direct discussion points and allowed participants to explain why they agreed or disagreed with statements.
The event’s physical organisation also helped the structure of the process. The jury was held at Quinton House in Utrecht, with one large room used for plenary sessions and two smaller rooms available for breakout discussions (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). This allowed participants to move between whole-group discussion and smaller group work. The process was also supported by moderators, Ines Calixto Piersma, Bas Kuus and Thijs de Zee co-moderated the discussions and produced transcripts and translations, while Roan Kremer welcomed participants, answered questions and took notes for the report (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). These practical tools helped keep the jury organised and made sure that participants’ discussions could be recorded and developed into a written report.
The second day focused on turning discussion into recommendations. Participants were supported by, Lisanne de Blok, Marij Swinkels and Lars Brummel, who answered questions and gave feedback on draft recommendations (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). Participants then worked in breakout groups to draft policy recommendations before presenting them in plenary. At the end of the day, a group spokesperson or each breakout group explained each recommendation, participants asked questions, and then each participant ultimately ranked the recommendations (Leruth, 2023, pp. 7-8). This combined expert input, small-group drafting, justification and individual ranking.
Overall, the method combined informed discussion with ranking, but participants did not have binding decision-making power. This matters because Fishkin and Luskin argue that good deliberation should be informed, balanced, conscientious and substantive. In others sense, participants should receive accurate information, hear different arguments, listen respectfully and engage seriously with the issue (Fishkin & Luskin, 2005, pp. 285-286). The REGROUP process supported this through expert input, breakout discussions, plenary questioning and recommendation drafting. However, its final output was only advisory. Participants ranked recommendations, but they did not decide policy. Its democratic strength hence came from producing considered citizen judgement, rather than from giving citizens direct control over policy.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury took place across two full days, on 10 and 24 June 2023, with each session running from 9:00 to 17:00 (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). The structure followed the format used across the REGROUP domestic citizens’ juries. Day 1 focused on introductions, understanding the core issues, sharing experiences and thinking about future perspectives. Day 2 moved to the production of policy recommendations (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). This meant the process was not only for discussion, but followed a staged format where participants first explored the problem before moving towards concrete proposals.
The first day began with an introduction to the REGROUP project and to the purpose of the citizens’ jury. Participants introduced themselves and explained why they wanted to be part of the process. They also learnt about the method itself, including why they had been selected and how their contribution would be used (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). This opening stage was important because it helped participants understand their role within the jury. It also gave them a chance to raise concerns before the main discussion began. After this, participants took part in a moving debate, where they positioned themselves in response to statements about Covid-19 information, public authority communication, traditional media, fake news, the role of non-elected experts, long-term preparedness and their personal confidence in dealing with future crises (Leruth, 2023, pp. 4-5).
Several important themes emerged from the first day. Participants discussed whether they understood Covid-19 information, which sources they trusted, and how they dealt with conflicting messages during the pandemic. Some participants felt the pandemic helped them learn which sources were reliable, while others found the volume of information difficult to process (Leruth, 2023, p. 5). One participant explained that information from different countries made the situation especially confusing, asking whether Dutch citizens should listen to Dutch experts or Swedish experts when countries followed different approaches (Leruth, 2023, p. 5). This shows that the discussion was not only about misinformation in a narrow sense. It also concerned the wider problem of how citizens interpret competing forms of information during uncertainty.
The role of experts was another major issue. Participants discussed whether non-elected experts had played a fair role in political decision-making during the pandemic and whether expert advice should include wider social perspectives. Some concerns focused on the Outbreak Management Team and whether its membership should have gone beyond medical expertise to include perspectives from fields such as sociology or psychology (Leruth, 2023, pp. 5-6). The discussion reflected a central tension in pandemic governance, where scientific advice was necessary, but citizens also wanted expert influence to be understandable and include broader perspectives. This was one reason why the jury format mattered. It allowed ordinary citizens to question the role of expertise rather than simply receiving expert-led decisions from above.
The second day focused on making recommendations. Participants were supported by resource persons who helped contextualise the issues by answering questions and providing feedback on draft proposals (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). Participants then worked in breakout sessions, using the smaller rooms at Quinton House, until they produced their recommendations (Leruth, 2023, pp. 7-8). This was an important stage because the jury moved from general concerns to specific institutional proposals. Rather than simply recording complaints about the pandemic, participants had to turn their experiences into recommendations that could be presented and assessed by the wider group.
At the end of the second day, all recommendations were introduced in plenary by a spokesperson chosen by each working group. These spokespersons explained the reasons behind the recommendations, and other participants were able to ask questions before voting took place (Leruth, 2023, pp. 7-8). Participants then ranked the recommendations individually. Therefore, the final order was not simply decided by the breakout groups themselves. It was produced through individual ranking after the recommendations had been presented, justified and questioned in plenary. However, the discussion remained internal to the jury. The report does not suggest that the wider public was involved in this stage.
From this, participants placed strong value on scientific communication, transparency and the public role of experts. The highest-ranked recommendation was a communication channel, managed by civil society, journalists, advisers, administration and academic organisations, to inform citizens about new scientific research. The second recommendation focused on increasing transparency in national political decision-making by explaining rejected alternatives and the political reasoning behind decisions in understandable language. Other recommendations concerned education on disinformation, local citizens’ juries followed by binding referendums, registration and regulation of advisory non-elected experts, an independent advisory body for the national parliament, scientific journalism, and further research on targeting different demographic groups (Leruth, 2023, pp. 8-10). Overall, participants did not reject expertise itself. Instead, they wanted expert knowledge to be made more transparent, accessible and democratically accountable.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The report also measured changes in participants before and after the jury. The results on trust were limited. Trust in the national government and national parliament stayed the same, while trust in the European Union fell slightly from 0.78 to 0.72. However, the report states that this change was not statistically significant (Leruth, 2023, p. 11). This means there is no strong evidence that taking part in the jury immediately increased political trust. This matters because trust was one of the main themes of the process. The result suggests that a two-day citizens’ jury can create useful discussion, but it cannot be expected to quickly repair wider problems of trust linked to the pandemic.
The same can be seen in participants’ wider attitudes. The report found little statistically significant change overall, although participants still saw disinformation as a serious issue (Leruth, 2023, pp. 14-15). The view that disinformation is a major problem only rose slightly, from 3.67 to 3.72, and this was not statistically significant. The significant changes were about other issues. Participants became more sceptical about people’s ability to understand their own needs, and more likely to think that decisions about science and technology should reflect the views of the majority (Leruth, 2023, p. 15). This suggests that the jury did not greatly change participants’ views. Its effect was more limited: it may have helped participants think more carefully about public understanding, expertise and democratic input in science-related decisions.
The wider political influence of the jury is harder to prove. Goodin and Dryzek argue that mini-publics can influence politics through policy uptake, public debate and support for reform (Goodin & Dryzek, 2006, pp. 219-221). However, the REGROUP report mainly records the internal process, the ranked recommendations and the participant survey results. It does not show that the recommendations were binding, adopted by government, or followed by a formal response. The case therefore had clear internal outputs, but its wider influence remains uncertain.
This reflects a wider problem with advisory mini-publics. Setälä argues that their policy impact is often weak or unclear, especially when they are not properly connected to representative decision-making (Setälä, 2017, pp. 846-847). This applies to the REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury because citizens produced recommendations but had no authority over implementation. Its influence was mainly advisory and report-based. The case may have contributed to REGROUP’s wider aim of producing advice for post-pandemic governance, but it should not be described as directly changing Dutch or EU policy unless further evidence is found.
There is also limited evidence that the jury affected people beyond the participants. Van der Does and Jacquet argue that evidence for the wider spillover effects of mini-publics remains tentative, especially for non-participating citizens (van der Does & Jacquet, 2021, pp. 218-219). This is useful for assessing the REGROUP case. The report shows what participants discussed, recommended and reported before and after the jury. However, it does not show that the wider Dutch public became more informed, trusting or engaged because of it. Overall, the clearest effects were internal. The jury created a structured space for citizens to discuss post-pandemic governance and produced ranked recommendations. Its broader democratic impact depended on whether those recommendations were circulated, taken seriously and connected to wider policy debates.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
This section evaluates the REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury using Graham Smith’s democratic goods framework: inclusion, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency and transferability. These goods help assess whether a democratic innovation involves citizens in a meaningful and politically useful way (Smith, 2009). Overall, the REGROUP case was strongest on considered judgement because it gave citizens time, structure and expert support to think through complex post-pandemic issues. However, it was weaker on inclusion and popular control because the final group was highly educated and the recommendations were advisory rather than binding.
Inclusion was mixed. The process used sortition-based recruitment through Sortition Foundation, which aimed to create diversity across age, gender, education, geography and news-consumption habits (Leruth, 2023). This fits the wider logic of mini-publics, where random or stratified selection is used to bring ordinary citizens into public judgement rather than relying only on elected representatives or already active citizens (Smith, 2009, pp. 72-73). The final group had some strengths. Gender was evenly balanced, and participants came from different age groups (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). However, inclusion was weakened by education. 83% of participants had university education at bachelor level or above, and the report states that Sortition Foundation could not recruit participants with lower levels of education (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). This matters because education can affect confidence and influence in discussion. Himmelroos’ research suggests that lower-educated participants may have less influence in deliberative forums, so their absence is not just a statistical issue but a democratic weakness (Himmelroos, 2017, p. 14). Inclusion was therefore only partly achieved.
Considered judgement was the strongest democratic good in this case. The jury followed a structured two-day process from 9:00 to 17:00. The first day focused on understanding the issues and sharing experiences, while the second day focused on producing policy recommendations (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). Participants discussed Covid-19 information, fake news, the media, public authorities, non-elected experts and future preparedness before moving into recommendation drafting (Leruth, 2023, pp. 4-8). They were also supported by resource persons who answered questions and gave feedback on draft proposals (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). This fits Fishkin and Luskin’s view that good deliberation should be informed, balanced, conscientious and substantive, meaning participants should receive relevant information, consider different arguments and engage seriously with the issue (Fishkin & Luskin, 2005, pp. 285-286). Although the survey results show little statistically significant attitude change, this does not mean the process failed. Its value was more about helping participants refine their views and turn concerns into recommendations than about producing major opinion shifts.
Popular control was weaker. Participants produced and ranked recommendations, so they had some control over the final output (Leruth, 2023, pp. 8-10). One recommendation even called for local citizens’ juries followed by binding referendums, which suggests that participants recognised the value of stronger public decision-making (Leruth, 2023, p. 9). However, the jury itself did not have binding authority. The report does not show that government had to accept, reject or formally respond to the recommendations. Setälä argues that mini-publics often have unclear policy impact when they are not properly connected to representative decision-making (Setälä, 2017, pp. 846-847). This applies here. The jury gave citizens a voice inside the process, but not direct control over policy implementation. Popular control was therefore weak to moderate.
Transparency was moderate. Internally, the process appears transparent because participants were introduced to the project, told why they had been selected and given the chance to ask questions about their role (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). The process was also documented through transcripts, translations and notes, which later informed the report (Leruth, 2023, p. 3). Externally, the report provides a clear account of the organisers, recruitment, discussions, recommendations and survey results. However, there is less evidence of wider public visibility or an official response from decision-makers. This means the process was well documented, but its visibility beyond the room is less clear.
Efficiency was strong internally, but harder to judge externally. The process used two full days, 18 final participants, one venue, three resource persons and modest compensation. Participants who attended both days received €100 gift cards, while resource persons received €50 gift cards (Leruth, 2023, pp. 1-3). This was enough to produce eight ranked recommendations on scientific communication, transparency, disinformation education and expert accountability (Leruth, 2023, pp. 8-10). In that sense, the process worked efficiently as a small-scale citizen forum. However, efficiency also depends on what happened after the report. If the recommendations were not taken up by institutions or used in wider debate, then the public value of the process becomes more limited. Its internal efficiency was therefore clearer than its external impact.
Transferability was one of the clearer strengths of the case. The REGROUP report states that all domestic citizens’ juries followed a similar two-day structure, which suggests that the model was already being used across different national contexts (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). The main tools used in the Netherlands case, such as sortition-based recruitment, plenary discussion, breakout groups, expert input, recommendation drafting and individual ranking, could be used elsewhere. However, transferability does not mean the model can simply be copied without adjustment. Felicetti, Niemeyer and Curato argue that mini-publics should be assessed as part of a wider deliberative system, not as isolated events (Felicetti, et al., 2016, pp. 427-428). This matters because future versions would need stronger recruitment of lower-educated participants and clearer links to decision-makers. The method is transferable, but its democratic value depends on how well it is connected to wider institutions.
The REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury shows both the promise and limits of advisory mini-publics. It created a structured setting where citizens could discuss disinformation, trust, expert authority and scientific communication after Covid-19. Its strongest contribution was considered judgement, while its main weaknesses were educational imbalance and limited policy authority. The key lesson is that mini-publics should not be judged only by the quality of discussion inside the room. They also need inclusive recruitment, public visibility and stronger links to decision-making if citizen recommendations are to matter beyond the process itself.
The REGROUP Netherlands Citizens’ Jury shows how mini-publics can create structured spaces for citizens to discuss complex post-pandemic governance issues. The case was strongest in its use of considered judgement: participants were given time, expert support and a clear process to discuss disinformation, knowledge circulation, trust and the role of experts before producing recommendations (Leruth, 2023, pp. 3-10). It also showed clear procedural organisation through recruitment, facilitation, breakout discussions, plenary questioning and individual ranking. However, the case also highlights two recurring limits of advisory mini-publics. First, sortition does not automatically guarantee inclusion, as the final group was heavily skewed towards highly educated participants (Leruth, 2023, p. 4). Second, citizen recommendations may have limited popular control if they are not linked to binding decisions or a formal response from decision-makers. The main lesson is therefore that mini-publics should not be judged only by the quality of discussion inside the room, but by whether inclusive recruitment, public transparency and institutional uptake allow citizen discussion to matter beyond the room.
See Also
References
Felicetti, A., Niemeyer, S. & Curato, N., 2016. Improving deliberative participation: connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. European Political Science Review, 8(3), pp. 427-448.
Fishkin, J. S. & Luskin, R. C., 2005. Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica, Volume 40, pp. 284-298.
Goodin, R. E. & Dryzek, J. S., 2006. Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society, 34(2), pp. 219-244.
Himmelroos, S., 2017. Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums: A comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13(1), pp. 1-28.
Leruth, B., 2023. National Mini-Public Report: The Netherlands, s.l.: s.n.
Participedia, 2025. Citizens’ Jury. [Online]
Available at: https://participedia.net/method/citizens-jury
[Accessed 17 05 2026].
Setälä, M., 2017. Connecting deliberative mini-publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), pp. 846-863.
Smith, G., 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spada, P., 2026. Reinventing Democracy Week 3 February 11th Mini Publics. s.l.:s.n.
Thompson, D. F., 2008. Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, Volume 11, pp. 498-500.
van der Does, R. & Jacquet, V., 2021. Small-scale deliberation and mass democracy: A systematic review of the spillover effects of deliberative minipublics. Political Studies, 71(1), pp. 218-237.
External Links
https://participedia.net/method/citizens-jury
